|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
iceage  Suspended Member (Idle past 5940 days) Posts: 1024 From: Pacific Northwest Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: basalt layering and flood deposits | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
roxrkool Member (Idle past 1014 days) Posts: 1497 From: Nevada Joined: |
Oh lord that was an awful exercise. Bizzaro world, indeed - yikes!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
"Hmm, no comments by our resident YECs? It would seem that an article like this would be right up True Creation's alley..."
--It would be, though the article requires knowledge of various field data which I don't have time to research right now. I'm still working on the thermal evolution of the oceanic upper mantle and lithosphere and its implications for a young ocean floor and runaway subduction. Conclusions are yet indefinite though the paper is coming along wonderfully (albeit, tediously). I think I am coming to appreciate what it takes to compose a good piece of scientific literature.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1732 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: Hmm, that doesn't seem to have hindered Woodmorappe and Oard. Watch it, you might set a new trend for YECs.
quote: Hmm, most of us started our geological education by doing things like Physical Geology 101 before we wrote professional papers...
quote: I hope you will consider communicating that to Woodmorappe and Oard...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bill Birkeland Member (Idle past 2557 days) Posts: 165 From: Louisiana Joined: |
09-17-2003 10:52 AM and message 15, Randy asked,
"Do you find this a bit surreal?" Getting back on topic, a surreal aspect of "Field studies in the Columbia River basalt, north-west USA", by "John Woodmorappe" and Michael J. Oard, and published in Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal. vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 103-110, was pointed out to me by someone interested in eventually writing a formal Talk.Origins FAQ on it. This item occurs in "Subaerial or subaqueous?", in which Woodmorappe and Oard wrote: "There are a variety of additional evidences,which indicate that most, if not all, of the Columbia River basalts were extruded underwater. These include marine fossils (such as sponge spicules, diatoms, and dinoflagellates) between lava flows, and numerous areas of well-rounded, exotic quartzite gravel, cobbles, and boulders locally interbedded with the flows (but mostly lying above the basalt).27-29." The footnoted references are: "27. Barnett, J. and Fisk, L.H., Palynologyand paleoecology of a sedimentary interbed in the Yakima Basalt (Miocene), Palouse Falls, Washington, (4):259-278, 1980. Northwest Science 54" "28. Coffin, H.G., Columbia River basalts:rapid submarine deposition (unpublished manuscript), 1996; (cited with permission of the author).", and "29. , Where is the Flood/post-Floodboundary in the rock record, (2):267-273, 1996. Oard, M.J. CEN Tech. J. 10" NOTE: the complete reference to Oard (1996) is: Oard, M. J., 1996, Where is the Flood/post-Flood boundary in the rock record. Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal. vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 267-273. Reading Barnett's and Fisk's "Palynology and paleoecology of a sedimentary interbed in the Yakima Basalt (Miocene), Palouse Falls, Washington" article was a surreal and revealing experience. Woodmorappe and Oard cited it in the footnotes along with Oard's and Coffin's research, as if Barnett's and Fisk's paper also presented evidence for the accumulation of the Columbia River Basalt Group on the ocean bottom in a marine environment, which they argued was associated with the Noachian Flood. A friend sent me a copy of Barnett's and Fisk's paper that he had gotten from the local research library for his purposes with the comment that I had to read this paper to believe it. He found a surreal contrast between Barnett's and Fisk's conclusions and the arguments being made by Woodmorappe and Oard in of "Field studies in the Columbia River basalt, north-west USA" because their conclusions were so different. Barnett and Fisk (1980) did find "diatoms, and dinoflagellates". However, they were freshwater diatoms, and dinoflagellates. In addition to these fossils, Barnett and Fisk found freshwater aquatic plants and freshwater alga, Pediastrum, which Woodmorappe and Oard apparently didn't see fit to inform their readers about. In short, Barnett and Fisk found freshwater alga, aquatic plants, diatoms, and dinoflagellates, which in terms of specific genera and species present, instead of supporting Woodmorappe's and Oard's ideas about the Columbia River Basalt group accumulating under deep, marine water, refuted them. It is rather surreal that a study, which contradicted their hypothesis, should be cited as if it supported it. In short, Barnett and Fisk concluded: The Palouse Falls palynoflora reflects reasonablywell the regional climatic conditions as evidence by the related floras of the Columbia Plateau. The presence of planktonic forms, aquatic macrophytes, and marsh plants indicates that deposition of the sediments took place in a body of water, probably a pond or lake. This interpretation is supported by the presence of abundant diatoms. The general decrease in aquatic plants and increase in forest elements upward in the section suggest a shallowing or infilling of the pond or lake, perhaps due to increased volcanic activity and erosion of ash from the surrounding region. Supporting this view is the presence of thin bands of lignite near the top of the section, with a 1-10 cm coal layer just underlying the capping basalt." Thus, the paper by Barnett and Fisk failed to provide any evidence of marine fossils. Instead, their paper discussed freshwater palynomorphs from either a pond or small freshwater lake with 25 to 30 cm (10 to 12 inches) of sediment at its bottom when it was buried by a lava flow. It is quite surreal that their paper clearly contradicted the argument being made by Woodmorappe and Oard instead of supporting it and, still, Woodmorappe and Oard cited it as if this paper supports their arguments. It is totally surreal that people, for which English is their native language, were incapable of conprehending the fact that Barnett and Fisk are discussing freshwater fossils instead of marine fossils. Being unpublished, Dr. Harold Coffin's paper is unavailable for review and comment. Thus, it hardly serves as proof of anything. As pointed out by the same person, Coffin, in his book "Origin by Design" concluded that the presence of pillow lava and "pelagonite", diatomaceous earth, and acritarchs indicates that the Columbia River Basalt Group were extruded subaqueously during the Noachian Flood. However, as noted in previous discussions, the occurrence of of pillow lava and "pelagonite also form in lakes. Thus, they aren't diagnostic of deep sea / marine environments as Dr. Coffin erroneously believed. As in case of pillow basalt and "pelagonite", Dr. Coffin apparent didn't know that diatomaceous earth can also accumulate within shallow freshwater lakes and, thus, useless without a detailed analysis of the genera and species of diatoms present within them as evidence of marine or deep water conditions. Finally, acritarchs are ""an informal utilitarian, 'catch-all' category without status as a class, order or other supragenieric unit" comprised of "small microfossils of unknown and probably varied biological affinities..." As a result, the presumption made by Coffin in "Origin by Design" that acritarchs are marine dinoflagellates is an invalid assumption. Also, the simple presence of unidentified acritarchs, because of their varied biological affinities and environmental preferences cannot be used to make any inferences as Coffin did about the depositional environments of the sediments in which they occur without knowing the specific genera and species involved. In addition, the paper, cited by "Origin by Design" as documenting the acritarchs, described a completely freshwater and swampy flora of palynomorphs that completely refuted Dr. Coffin's conclusions. However, this did not stop Dr. Coffin from citing that paper as if it supported his interpretation. Like Woodmorappe and Oard, Dr. Coffin neglected to inform his readers, sparing them from the angst of being confused by facts contradicting his arguments, of the freshwater, even swampy, nature of the palynomorphs discussed in the cited paper. If Coffin's unpublished paper uses the same sort of simplistic, faulty, and surreal logic as found in "Origin by Design," then there is serious question as to if it actually offered any real evidence for the deep sea - Noachian Flood accumulation of the Columbia River Basalt Group. If Woodmorappe and Oard want to use it in their arguments, they definitely need to make a copy of Coffin's unpublished paper available for review. Oard's paper has been requested by interlibrary loan by other interested parties. Eventually, someone will get into looking into the validity of evidence offered by that paper. Finally, sponges are found in both freshwater lakes and marine environments. Thus, the presence of sponge spicules in sediments within the Columbia River Basalt Group cannot be used to argue that it accumulated within deep water.Yours, Bill Birkeland [This message has been edited by Bill Birkeland, 09-18-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
"Hmm, most of us started our geological education by doing things like Physical Geology 101 before we wrote professional papers..."
--Its not like I never picked up a book on general geology before. Just because I would like to do specific technical research doesn't mean I am not working from the bottom up. "I hope you will consider communicating that to Woodmorappe and Oard..."--Would they listen? From reading a forum between Baumgardner and Oard, Oard's credibility seems to be out of focus, even on current YECist standards as far as I am aware. And, recalling some of my readings of Woodmorappe's work, I wouldn't bet on that fellow being on a better footing either.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1732 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: And, of course, we KNOW that fresh water lakes and streams aren't found on plateau basalts, don't we?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
iceage  Suspended Member (Idle past 5940 days) Posts: 1024 From: Pacific Northwest Joined: |
Just found another YEC paper discussing the Columbia Lava flows and others. They claim that entablature and columnar basalt is evidence of submarine flows.
http://origins.swau.edu/papers/geologic/lava/default.html
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
roxrkool Member (Idle past 1014 days) Posts: 1497 From: Nevada Joined: |
Bill Birkeland:
quote:Oh, I suspect they knew full well what that paper was saying!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
lstorer Inactive Member |
I read a book a long time ago called Ragnarok; Age of Fire and Gravel. This book to me was very fascinating and made some since to a person not to bright but interested in finding out what happened. I was wondering if anyone else has read it and what they thought about it. Instead of Comets impacting the Earth, he suggests that a very Large Mass of Smaller particles impacted the atmosphere causing Polar evaporation and large amounts of the Ocean to evaporate. Which blocked the suns Rays. After some cool down it Rained very hard for a long time which caused Noahs Flood. Debris and Rocks (gravel) found around parts of the world like a blanket, with markings that could not be caused by Glacier Action. Any reply welcome. This book I'm talking about was wrote by Ignasius Donnelly I believe.
Sincerely Les a Non-Scientist but searcher after Truth.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rei Member (Idle past 7039 days) Posts: 1546 From: Iowa City, IA Joined: |
The problem is, to get any sort of significant percentage of the requisite 6 miles of water coming from the sky requires turning the atmosphere into a gigantic pressure cooker - water is heavy, and every bit of water vapor in the atmosphere adds to the atmospheric pressure. If all 6 miles were in the atmosphere, the pressure would be equivalent of being underwater at the bottom of Challenger Deep. To have this water be in vapor form would require intense temperature as well.
Noah would have been parbroiled. Name your gravel site so we can inform you exactly why it exists Vague archaeology is of no use, and since there's no "universal gravel layer" in the world, there's no way to tell what you're referring to. ------------------"Illuminant light, illuminate me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17826 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
As well as being somewhat out of date (late 19th century), Donelly was, I am afraid, something of a crank.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bill Birkeland Member (Idle past 2557 days) Posts: 165 From: Louisiana Joined: |
lstorer, in the Great Flood, wrote
"Debris and Rocks (gravel) foundaround parts of the world like a blanket, with markings that could not be caused by Glacier Action. Any reply welcome. This book I'm talking about was wrote by Ignasius Donnelly I believe." Rei in message 25 wrote: "Name your gravel site so we caninform you exactly why it exists Vague archaeology is of no use, and since there's no "universal gravel layer" in the world, there's no way to tell what you're referring to." The "gravel", which Donnelly refers to in his book "The Age of Fire and Gravel" consists mostly glacial till of varying ages. Within the tropics, he also included colluvial, various types of mass-wasting deposits, and even fluvial gravels within the sedeimntray deposits, whih he refers to as "gravel". Donnelly presumes that all of the sediments are all of the same age and, thus, were created by the same catastrophic event. Donnelly is sort of the late 1800's equivalent of Velikovsky. PaulK wrote: "As well as being somewhat out ofdate (late 19th century), Donelly was, I am afraid, something of a crank" Given that "The Age of Fire and Gravel" was published in 1887, a person can confidentally regard his book as being seriously out of date and quite obsolete in terms of both evidence presented and arguments used. All of the items used as evidence supporting his hypothesized impacts have now been explained by more conventional ideas. Also, an abundance of published research can be found to argue against the catastrophic origin of his "gravel". In 1887, he really wasn't a crank, but just one person in a long tradition of various authors interpreting certain sedimentary deposits within catastrophic framework based on a literal interpretation of selected parts of various religious texts, including Genesis. The real cranks are people like Rand Flem-Ath, who wrote "When the Sky Fell" in 1995, and D. S. Allan and J. B. Delair, who wrote "Cataclysm" in 1995. Unlike Donnelly's time, there is now an abundance of published research available that readily refutes their positions and, they, unlike Donnelly, really should know better. In fact, "Cataclysm" argued a thesis identical to Donnelly's using the piecemeal presentation of evidence carefully selected and edited to support their position. They ignore the overall context of their evidence, which contradicts and refutes their thesis. They simply ignore an overwhelming amount of research that repeatedly refutes their arguments and had not been existene a to contradict Donnelly arguments. Similarily, Flem-Ath, a catastrophist invoking Earth Crustal Displacement instead of cometary impacts, uses the same piecemeal patchwork of bits and pieces of unconnected evidence and a functionally illiterate misunderstanding of geology to argue for his past global catastrophes. Yours, Bill Birkeland
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
lstorer Inactive Member |
Thank You so much for your reply and thanks for taking the time to reply. I am really interested in this subject, but being a non-scientist am afraid of boring you. Please keep up the good work. The answer is there I'm sure. If I hear anything else will pass along.
V/R lstorer
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
lstorer Inactive Member |
{Duplicated previous message}
Please only click on button once. That said, I've done at least one double-post myself. - AM [This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 10-30-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17826 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Donnelly also wrote a book on Atlantis (as a real place) and argued that Francis Bacon was the author of Shakespeare's pkays based on the prexence of "codes" in the works. Of course these "codes" rested on rather arbitrary manipulations of the text - which could equally well produce quite different "messages". As his critics at the time showed.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024